SAF sues DC for carry permits

NEWS RELEASE
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • Second Amendment Foundation Online
SAF SUES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OVER CARRYING OF HANDGUNS
For Immediate Release: 8/6/2009
NEWS RELEASE



For Immediate Release: Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012



BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit on behalf of three residents of the District of Columbia and a New Hampshire resident, seeking to compel the city to issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens.


The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident. SAF and the individual plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 that overturned the District’s handgun ban on the grounds that it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.


“Once again,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we’re heading back to court because the anti-gun city administration refuses to abide by the law. It is beginning to appear like residents of the District are up against a rogue city government that simply does not want to ease its stranglehold on the most important civil right of all, the right of self-preservation.”


“In most major American cities,” said attorney Gura, “where the right to bear arms is respected, licensed permit holders have proven themselves safe and effective. Washington, D.C. already requires handgun registrants to complete the background checks and training classes required of carry permit holders throughout the country. It is pointless to deny these individuals the right to bear arms.”


SAF previously sued the District over its restrictive handgun registration policies, leading the city to amend those policies. This time, SAF is alleging that the District previously had a city code under which the police chief could issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including citizens not residing in the District, though the city did not issue such licenses as a matter of policy for several years. That authority was revoked last December by the Mayor and City Council.


Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the continued ban on carrying handguns by law-abiding citizens for personal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation (Second Amendment Foundation Online) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-

I'm not holding my breath.

Good Luck!

I'm surprised they are going right after DC. At least in WI, the state supreme court ruled that their law was ambiguous and needed to be rewritted. But year after year, the elected legislatures fail to fix it.

On one hand, it's a model of how the court did not create policy. It's also a model of how the court has no teeth to back up it's rulings.

But in my non-lawyer opinion, it would seem an easier start since the state court has already ruled.

Then again, that opens up the whole state's rights vs. federal authority arguement again.

I'll just go lay back down by my dish....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff

I'm surprised they are going right after DC.

---

They are going after DC because such a suit does not require incorporation of the 2nd amendment through the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GWRedDragon

They are going after DC because such a suit does not require incorporation of the 2nd amendment through the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

---

Also keep in mind DC does *technically* have a carry permit, so they wouldn't necessarily need to change anything, just issue the permits to qualified individuals. They just had to give up the California handgun roster, so DC's pretty much on their heels right now and probably has no conceivable way to win on this issue.

Gee, do you think they will have reciprocity agreements soon or should we all get non resident DC permits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GWRedDragon

They are going after DC because such a suit does not require incorporation of the 2nd amendment through the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

---

That's what I was getting at here although you said it much better:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff

Then again, that opens up the whole state's rights vs. federal authority arguement again.

I'll just go lay back down by my dish....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by press1280

Also keep in mind DC does *technically* have a carry permit, so they wouldn't necessarily need to change anything, just issue the permits to qualified individuals. They just had to give up the California handgun roster, so DC's pretty much on their heels right now and probably has no conceivable way to win on this issue.

---

That's a good point too. I would seem that this is a way to show that the law is not applied equally. If it wins there, then Hawaii and Iowa's so called "permit" would be the next under the spotlight IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcp1810

Gee, do you think they will have reciprocity agreements soon or should we all get non resident DC permits?

---

That'll be a ways down the road. We'll just have to get non-resident for the meantime. I do hope they change the duration of their permits, as they're only good for 1 year.

That's a good point too. I would seem that this is a way to show that the law is not applied equally. If it wins there, then Hawaii and Iowa's so called "permit" would be the next under the spotlight IMO.
After incorporation, I'd say all of those states will be slapped with lawsuits. Mr.Gura's not wasting any time.

Yep, I think you hit on another thing: denying the ability to have or carry a gun to all nonresidents is a clear violation of the 14th amendment...

Quote:

---

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

My reading of this is that all states must offer nonresident permits under the same terms as they do resident permits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GWRedDragon

Yep, I think you hit on another thing: denying the ability to have or carry a gun to all nonresidents is a clear violation of the 14th amendment...



My reading of this is that all states must offer nonresident permits under the same terms as they do resident permits.

---

That's one thing the privleges or immunities actually covers. SCOTUS ruled that new residents must be given equal WELFARE benefits to that of established residents, so certainly a CCW should be covered(or at least some alternative like reciprocity).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by press1280

That's one thing the privleges or immunities actually covers. SCOTUS ruled that new residents must be given equal WELFARE benefits to that of established residents, so certainly a CCW should be covered(or at least some alternative like reciprocity).

---

New residents is different from people who are not residents. However I believe the result is the same.

On the other hand, a similar case ruled that there could be no period of time required after residency before such benefits could be collected. Thus states which require you to be a resident for 30 or 90 days before applying for a permit would be barred from doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GWRedDragon

On the other hand, a similar case ruled that there could be no period of time required after residency before such benefits could be collected. Thus states which require you to be a resident for 30 or 90 days before applying for a permit would be barred from doing so.

---

Another great point.

If a person moved from any state to Colorado, my old homestate permit would be invalid as soon as they were a CO resident. And then, as I recal, you have to be a CO resident for 3 months (?) before you can APPLY for your permit and wait another 3 months.

And since they don't issue out of state permits either, there is no way around being unarmed for a minimum of six months.

In this case, a non-resident is part of the suit, not to mention the DC code allows for a non-resident to get a CCW as long as they already have one from their home state.

Don't know how I missed this.

Did a search and did not find it here. If I missed it please combine, or delete.

Lawsuit seeks right to carry guns in public - Washington Times

Quote:

---

Lawsuit seeks right to carry guns in public

The man whose Supreme Court challenge secured the right of D.C. residents to keep guns in their homes is back in court, this time filing a lawsuit on behalf of a group seeking the right of registered gun owners to carry their guns in public.

Four individuals and a gun-rights advocacy group joined lawyer Alan Gura on Thursday in filing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court. It was an earlier lawsuit by Mr. Gura that forced the District to end its 30-year-old gun ban, the strictest in the United States.

The lawsuit argues that the District's "laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution. It asks that the District issue licenses to carry guns in public to legal gun owners in the city and to people with valid carry permits from outside the city.

"This lawsuit was inevitable in many ways," Mr. Gura said Thursday, adding that most jurisdictions in the country have carry laws. "This is not the end of all gun control."

Mr. Gura said the lawsuit does not take a position on whether the District should allow legal gun owners to carry weapons openly or in a concealed manner. That issue, he said, should be left to city officials to regulate.

The D.C. residents who brought the case are Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey. The nonprofit Washington state-based Second Amendment Foundation is also named as a plaintiff.

The three D.C. residents, who are licensed gun owners in the District, had gun-registration applications rejected by the Metropolitan Police Department because they stated their intention was to carry the loaded guns on their person outside their homes.

"My right to self-defense shouldn't stop at my front door," said Mrs. McVey, 46, of Northwest Washington. Mrs. McVey in July became the first person to register a handgun in the District after the ban was lifted.

Asked where she might carry her gun, Mrs. McVey responded: "Everywhere it's legal."

Edward Raymond, a Navy veteran enrolled in law school in New Hampshire, is also listed as a plaintiff.

Mr. Raymond, who is not a D.C. resident, was stopped for speeding in the District in April 2007 while he was transporting a gun for which he had permits in Maryland and Florida. He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unregistered gun and unregistered ammunition charges.

He sought a license that would allow him to transport his gun through the District but was refused.

D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, had not seen the lawsuit but said he disagrees with the basic premise.

"Mr. Gura is treading uncharted ground claiming that the Second Amendment offers the right to carry," he said.

Mr. Mendelson said the District's role as home to the president, Congress and the diplomatic corps should be reason enough not to allow carrying.

"In the nation's capital, carrying is perhaps the greatest concern to law enforcement because it makes it very hard for law enforcement to distinguish between a person who is carrying a firearm legally and a potential assassin," he said.

The Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the city's near-total ban on handguns was unconstitutional and that residents should be allowed to keep guns in their homes for personal protection.

City officials began rewriting the laws immediately after the decision. The new laws still forbid semiautomatic and other high-powered weapons.

Mr. Gura filed another lawsuit in March, arguing that a roster of handguns deemed acceptable for registration was restrictive. The lawsuit was dropped when the D.C. government in June expanded its list of guns that residents could seek to register.

---

:congrats: